الفهرس 
Conventional defecography versus dynamic 3D anorectal ultrasonography (Echodefecography) in assessment of patients with obstructed defecation
TABLE OF CONTENTSOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 90 |  |  |
| | | from | 90 | | |
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of dynamic anorectal endosonography (echodefecography) with conventional defecography and dynamic MRI defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of dynamic anorectal endosonography (echodefecography) with conventional defecography and dynamic MRI defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders. In group A: Echodefecography (EDF) identified anismus in 6 cases (40%), rectocele in 9 cases (60%), intussusception in 10 cases (66.7%), enterocele in 4 cases (26.7%) and anorectal descent in 10 cases (66.7%). MR defecography (MRD) identified rectocele in 8 cases (53.3%), anorectal descent in 14 cases (93.3%), no anismus, intussusception or enterocele were detected. Additionally, it detected cystocele in 7 cases (46.7%) and uterocele in 5 cases (33.3%). No significant statistical difference between EDF and MRD regarding detection of rectocele and anorectal descent (P value 0.205, 0.143 respectively). No statistics were computed in comparing EDF and MRD regarding anismus, intussusception and enterocele as MRD was constant (as it did not detect any case). In group B: Echodefecography (EDF) identified anismus in 3 cases (20%), rectocele in 13 cases (86.7), intussusception in 12 cases (80%), enterocele in 2 cases (13.3%) and anorectal descent in 7 cases (46.7%). Cinedefecography (CDF) identified anismus in 2 cases (13.3%), rectocele in 14 cases (93.3%) intussusception in 1 case (6.7%) and anorectal descent in 11 cases (73.3%) No enterocele was detected. No significant statistical difference between EDF and CDF regarding detection of anismus P value 0.225